Is EastEnders Really in HD ?

ftvftv Posts: 31,668
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Having seen criticism on various threads I've watched a couple of episodes of EastEnders this week and really doubt whether it is in HD. I know the BBC made a big song and dance just before Christmas but I honestly cannot see any difference between the ''HD'' and SD picture quality whereas I have excellent HD quality on other channels and indeed on BBC1 where programmes really are in HD. Is it me or the BBC ?
«1

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,076
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's one of the worst examples of HD out there. I don't really watch Corrie, but I now put that up as one of the better examples of HD available.

    BBC should be ashamed for the way they've pushed Enders as being in HD.
  • bayardsbayards Posts: 1,993
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I won't add to this or else Phil may come over and duff me up lol
  • galleonslapgalleonslap Posts: 384
    Forum Member
    If it is real HD then goodness knows what cameras they're using, or what they've done to it afterwards. :eek: It's not the transmission standard as other stuff on the same channel looks good. As has been mentioned, they should watch Corrie to see how it's done.
  • bayardsbayards Posts: 1,993
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Perhaps it is fine dust in the air blurring everything? Possibly due to the intense building going on for the Olympic Park and adjoining Westfield shopping centre - Europe's soon-to-be largest shopping venue lol
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,019
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    All drama's on BBCHD are poor PQ but eastenders is particually bad.
  • linkinpark875linkinpark875 Posts: 29,700
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Probably watered down and edited.

    I read these stars don't like to look to in detail in HD.
  • omnidirectionalomnidirectional Posts: 18,816
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Some programmes on BBC One HD look stunning, especially nature/wildlife programmes. Eastenders however is hideous - something is very much wrong.
  • kegsiekegsie Posts: 2,800
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Perhaps the marketing people got confused and didn't realise Eastenders goes HD didn't actually mean high definition but instead meant hugely depressing.
  • alan.walan.w Posts: 1,438
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Funny this should be asked i been wondering the same! BBC made a big noise about Eastenders being in HD at Christmas but was it just the Christmas shows that were in HD?
    If it is HD its not a good pic on Freesat anyway :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 538
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    EastEnders is one of the few programmes where I actually wouldn't notice it was in HD.
  • AJRevittAJRevitt Posts: 1,123
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    kegsie wrote: »
    Perhaps the marketing people got confused and didn't realise Eastenders goes HD didn't actually mean high definition but instead meant hugely depressing.

    Probably! :D
  • linkinpark875linkinpark875 Posts: 29,700
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Perhaps the current set was not updated enough to handle proper HD?
  • Jaycee DoveJaycee Dove Posts: 18,762
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As the OP said this was noted on the very first day that the programme 'went' HD and has been debated in several threads on here for weeks now.

    Or, not debated as I do not recall anyone thinking this looks like HD after watching.

    So if everyone in the universe can apparenty see the problem apart from the BBC something is very wrong.

    I have even heard the voiceover suggest you watch on BBC 1 HD to see it in 'glorious HD'.

    Did not know that the BBC were now providing viewers with free bottles of vodka (though they might help if you watch East Enders daily)...but that would be the only way you would ever think this rubbish is glorious HD.

    As I have said on numerous other threads the real tester is that not only is Coronation Street on ITV 1 HD obviously HD (you do not ever need to ask IF it is) but Emmerdale - filmed with HD cameras but not yet with HD post production so still upscaled is actually more like HD than Enders.

    That alone proves there is a major problem somewhere.

    But, of course, the BBC have for months run away from all complaints about what happened with the drop in PQ. So what do you do?
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alan.w wrote: »
    Funny this should be asked i been wondering the same! BBC made a big noise about Eastenders being in HD at Christmas but was it just the Christmas shows that were in HD?
    If it is HD its not a good pic on Freesat anyway :confused:

    The BBC studios and post-production web site said clearly before Christmas that all the Elstree facilities used by EE had been upgraded, Albert Square and the three studios they use. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this:eek:
  • jaffboy151jaffboy151 Posts: 1,933
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't really watch eastenders but others in my house do, so I do see a few minuites of it and have to agree it does look very poor, no noticeable difference from the SD channels, saying that I find most content on BBC one HD poor with little difference to the standard channel, where as itv's coronation street looks very good, some bits can be a bit flat looking and I seem to notice issues with the black levels on some inside shots where it seems a bit grey, other then that it very good, excellent in fact when compared to deadenders.. The church bits from monday's episodes were very good. The detail (visible wrinkles) on some of the actors was great!!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 20
    Forum Member
    I think it is the way the Beeb shoot Eastenders. If you watch Hollyoaks, the background is nearly always in focus thus giving the picture greater clarity. With Eastenders the background is often shot out of focus, only the foreground (ie actors) are in focus so no depth to the picture and thus appears to be SD?
  • Ellie666Ellie666 Posts: 2,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bayards wrote: »
    Perhaps it is fine dust in the air blurring everything? Possibly due to the intense building going on for the Olympic Park and adjoining Westfield shopping centre - Europe's soon-to-be largest shopping venue lol

    well it is a good 20 miles + away from those sites!!

    i've noticed that a 1/2 hour episode takes up max 2% on planner where as a ch4 hd/sky 1 hd/living hd take up 3 or 4 % for the same time
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,370
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    newboy wrote: »
    I think it is the way the Beeb shoot Eastenders. If you watch Hollyoaks, the background is nearly always in focus thus giving the picture greater clarity. With Eastenders the background is often shot out of focus, only the foreground (ie actors) are in focus so no depth to the picture and thus appears to be SD?

    This is part of the style and I think you have put your finger on an important point - sharpness all the way to the horizon is actually unnatural but look great in HD ....

    The BBC has always made HD look more natural .. and "takes care "over depth of field,

    As it is really only EE which looks depressed ... it is not the codecs (which measure better than the original 16M ones)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,076
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There's absolutely no way it could be passed off as HD based on it looking "more natural." It's simply not HD.
  • chenkschenks Posts: 13,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    alves wrote: »
    There's absolutely no way it could be passed off as HD based on it looking "more natural." It's simply not HD.

    based purely on resolution (and that's what HD basically is), then it is IS HD no matter how much you argue.
    whether the bitrate or grain level or whatever is up to anyone's standard is a different debate.

    i could create a 1280x720 file that has a pathetic bitrate, and it still technically would be HD.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,076
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OK I'll rephrase. Based on the hours of HD content available on a range of channels, there's no way it can be passed off as HD.

    It's a pathetic example made even worse by the way the BBC have been shouting from the rooftops about how it's now in HD.
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,370
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    alves wrote: »
    There's absolutely no way it could be passed off as HD based on it looking "more natural." It's simply not HD.

    Well it is 1440 *1080i and it has information at those spacial frequencies - unlike an upscale .. so it is HD

    There has been a lot of talk on these boards about "the HD look" ( which does not really exist) ... and so we have to presume that the directors / producers of EE want it to look like it is .. which does seem to to appeal to (any/every) one.

    remember Casualty Film look ... and we have Spooks never being HD for good reasons - ... which the Directors says are important to their art - which I think we all respect..
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,019
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The BBC has always made HD look more natural .. and "takes care "over depth of field,

    They can do what they want with it, if it looks crap to the viewer then its pointless and all stuff bar live shows look crap on BBCHD
    BBCHD used to be demo quality many years ago, now its only saved from being bottom of the pile by E4HD.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 117
    Forum Member
    I watched Eastenders last night and I could tell that it was in HD. There was a big difference in pq.
    I watched half on Sky and the other half on Freeview
    Sky had the better picture in HD.
  • Jaycee DoveJaycee Dove Posts: 18,762
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There has actually been a slight but noticeable improvement that kicked in about 2 weeks ago.

    But it is still much less good than either Coronation Street on ITV HD or Hollyoaks on Channel 4 HD.
Sign In or Register to comment.